GDGB.L vs. EMGB.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

GDGB.L (VanEck Gold Miners UCITS ETF) and EMGB.L (VanEck J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GDGB.L is a Gold fund tracking the MarketVector Global Gold Miners Index, while EMGB.L is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund tracking the JPM GBI-EM Global Diversified TR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GDGB.L returned 20.20%/yr vs 2.27%/yr for EMGB.L. At a 0.17 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GDGB.L charges 0.53%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for EMGB.L.

Performance

GDGB.L vs. EMGB.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in VanEck Gold Miners UCITS ETF (GDGB.L) and VanEck J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond UCITS ETF (EMGB.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GDGB.L achieves a 0.91% return, which is significantly lower than EMGB.L's 1.24% return.

GDGB.L

• 1D: 0.68%
• 1M: -4.88%
• YTD: 0.91%
• 6M: 6.31%
• 1Y: 65.52%
• 3Y*: 37.68%
• 5Y*: 20.20%
• 10Y*: —

EMGB.L

• 1D: 0.03%
• 1M: 0.86%
• YTD: 1.24%
• 6M: 1.38%
• 1Y: 10.23%
• 3Y*: 4.11%
• 5Y*: 2.27%
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GDGB.L vs. EMGB.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
GDGB.L VanEck Gold Miners UCITS ETF	0.91%	138.26%	11.24%	3.69%	3.04%	-10.47%	19.56%	38.86%	-5.04%	-4.03%
EMGB.L VanEck J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond UCITS ETF	1.24%	10.22%	-0.96%	4.28%	0.69%	-8.70%	-0.78%	6.10%	-3.13%	-3.39%

Correlation

The correlation between GDGB.L and EMGB.L is 0.20, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.20
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.18
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.14
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 15, 2017	0.17

Return for Risk

GDGB.L vs. EMGB.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

GDGB.L

GDGB.L Risk / Return Rank: 42
GDGB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 45
GDGB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 40
GDGB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 41
GDGB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 46
GDGB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 37

EMGB.L

EMGB.L Risk / Return Rank: 54
EMGB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
EMGB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
EMGB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 61
EMGB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 44
EMGB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 40

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

GDGB.L vs. EMGB.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Gold Miners UCITS ETF (GDGB.L) and VanEck J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond UCITS ETF (EMGB.L). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

	GDGB.L	EMGB.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.55	1.96	-0.41
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.01	2.93	-0.92
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.37	-0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.23	2.16	+0.07
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.70	6.23	-0.52
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GDGB.L vs. EMGB.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GDGB.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.55, which is comparable to the EMGB.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.96. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GDGB.L and EMGB.L, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GDGB.L	EMGB.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.55	1.96	-0.41
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.62	0.33	+0.29
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.51	0.06	+0.45

Drawdowns

GDGB.L vs. EMGB.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GDGB.L drawdown since its inception was -40.80%, which is greater than EMGB.L's maximum drawdown of -20.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GDGB.L and EMGB.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	GDGB.L	EMGB.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-40.80%	-20.56%	-20.24%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-28.97%	-4.68%	-24.29%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-28.97%	-4.68%	-24.29%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.49%	-9.57%	-25.92%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-24.72%	-2.87%	-21.85%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-17.52%	-10.65%	-6.87%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	11.36%	1.63%	+9.73%

Volatility

GDGB.L vs. EMGB.L - Volatility Comparison

VanEck Gold Miners UCITS ETF (GDGB.L) has a higher volatility of 14.28% compared to VanEck J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond UCITS ETF (EMGB.L) at 1.63%. This indicates that GDGB.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EMGB.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GDGB.L	EMGB.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.28%	1.63%	+12.65%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	33.43%	4.10%	+29.33%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	41.77%	5.17%	+36.60%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	32.58%	6.87%	+25.71%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	32.11%	8.33%	+23.78%

GDGB.L vs. EMGB.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

GDGB.L has a 0.53% expense ratio, which is higher than EMGB.L's 0.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

GDGB.L vs. EMGB.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither GDGB.L nor EMGB.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GDGB.L and EMGB.L in my portfolio?

GDGB.L and EMGB.L have a correlation of 0.20, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, GDGB.L or EMGB.L?

On fees, EMGB.L is cheaper at 0.30% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, GDGB.L or EMGB.L?

EMGB.L is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.53% for GDGB.L.

What is the main difference between GDGB.L and EMGB.L?

GDGB.L is categorized as Gold, while EMGB.L is Emerging Markets Bonds. GDGB.L tracks MarketVector Global Gold Miners Index, while EMGB.L tracks JPM GBI-EM Global Diversified TR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.53% for GDGB.L and 0.30% for EMGB.L.